An inner sense of justice

For once, television went hungry. The hanging of Ajmal Kasab, that made-for television extravaganza starring hyperventilating news anchors, pontificating experts and dramatic background music, took place in a decidedly unspectacular way. Acting with uncharacteristic secrecy and a sense of efficient urgency that comes completely against the run of play, the government carried out the sentence swiftly after the rejection of the mercy petition. In its wake it left a whole range of reactions from different sides of the ideological spectrum.

For some, the sentence was carried out far too quietly, for any satisfaction to be derived from the action. He should have been hanged publicly, some aver, apparently relishing the prospect of a public display of vengeance. There has been a significant section of opinion that has watched the Indian judicial process with great frustration, as it seemed to take an interminable amount of time to come to what most saw as a foregone conclusion. The idea that India was spending large sums on money, looking after someone that had committed such heinous crimes, was deeply offensive to this group.

On the other hand, there are those that use this example to argue against the death penalty, labelling it a medieval form of blood-letting that no civilised nation should be party to. The fact that evidence suggests that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent and that there is always the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, points to the need to look at other modes of punishment. Also, hanging Kasab, according to this view, does not in any way make the country safer or deter future attacks; on the contrary it might well fan the flames of self- righteous anger on the other side.

The trouble with terrorism is that it stands outside the usual frameworks that govern the sense of right and wrong, of action and consequence, of the very idea of reciprocity and its value in society. The terrorist, attacks the idea of civilisation by detaching his actions from any specific purpose, and punctures society’s ability to respond by voluntarily giving up a desire to live. The foreswearing of life dismantles one of civilisation’s founding assumptions and renders it incapable of meting out punishment, which is otherwise its way of maintaining control. How do you punish someone that has embraced the worst punishment one can imagine as a starting position? The Mumbai attacks were mounted with no specific purpose in mind; there were no ‘demands’, nor did the attackers plan on being caught alive. The terrorism that they practise has no answer within the structure of civilisation- in that there is no equivalent response that is possible. Terrorism is an idea- the people carrying it forward seem to be spearheading it, but they are merely transient vehicles that get replaced by others. All form of retaliation attacks the surface of the problem; for the real product that terror sells is fear and doubt, and once implanted, no amount of reciprocal action can eliminate these. It is possible to attack people and places, but how does one attack an idea that is present in one’s own mind?

Faced with such an implacable negation of the idea of civilisation, the only method of response available if for any civilisation to re-assert its belief in itself and play uncompromisingly by the rules it has laid down for itself, without any deviation. Arguments that focus on the outcome of one’s actions- whether a certain kind of punishment acts as a deterrent or not, are of no use. The key is not whether killing a terrorist by finding him guilty in a court of law signals our ability to strike back strongly, nor whether it actually might provoke more attacks. Justice here is not an outward signal, but an inner compass.

Our response to terrorism must be as far as possible, independent of external considerations, for any discussion of this kind is by definition unproductive in a scenario where causality does not operate in a conventional sense.

Justice in this case, is only about confirming an existing way of life- of acting with stillness and an inward sense of purpose, without factoring in possible consequences. The key to dealing with the issue of justice in a case like this is to act exactly as per the existing law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less. No need to underline the sense of vengeance (after all, Kasab had come here to die in any case), no call to triumphantly revel in the victory of due process, and no reason to use this event to ask larger questions about the death penalty.

Whether the death penalty should exist or not is a legitimate question and needs to be debated, but to do so in this case is to risk muddling two different issues. The position India chooses to take on the capital punishment must step outside individual cases and rest on a philosophical determination of where it stands. If there were reasons, within the existing framework of the law, to ask if Kasab were not worthy of mercy or doubt, then surely they can be asked, but as it turns out, in this case that doesn’t seem to be the case.

The 27 crores spent on Kasab, were in fact not spent on him at all. They were spent on preserving a sense of self for the nation in the face of the gravest provocation. Terrorism has managed to implant a nagging sense of fear in our everyday life, but to allow it to infect us with doubt about a chosen way of life would be the real defeat. Those who bemoan India’s softness forget that the real battle here is one for the idea of civilisation. And while the Indian idea of civilisation as it is practised today has many flaws, in this case, by following the letter of the law, the right thing has been done, in the right way, for once.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Author

Santosh Desai is a leading ad professional. He says he has strayed into writing entirely by accident, and for this he is "grateful". "City City Bang Bang" looks at contemporary Indian society from an everyday vantage point. It covers issues big and small, tends where possible to avoid judgmental positions, and tries instead to understand what makes things the way they are. The desire to look at things with innocent doubt helps in the emergence of fresh perspectives and hopefully, of clarity of a new kind.

Santosh Desai is a leading ad professional. He says he has strayed into writing entirely by accident, and for this he is "grateful". "City City Bang Bang" l. . .

From around the web

More from The Times of India

Comments

Top Comment

()

Author

Santosh Desai is a leading ad professional. He says he has strayed into writing entirely by accident, and for this he is "grateful". "City City Bang Bang" looks at contemporary Indian society from an everyday vantage point. It covers issues big and small, tends where possible to avoid judgmental positions, and tries instead to understand what makes things the way they are. The desire to look at things with innocent doubt helps in the emergence of fresh perspectives and hopefully, of clarity of a new kind.

Santosh Desai is a leading ad professional. He says he has strayed into writing entirely by accident, and for this he is "grateful". "City City Bang Bang" l. . .